3. c 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microﬁlming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied speciﬁcally for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com This document was sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other ISBN: 978-1-4020-8704-2 e-ISBN: 978-1-4020-8705-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008930994 agencies of the U.S. Government under an award from the NSF (ENG-0423742) expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the Copyright to electronic versions by WTEC, Inc. and Springer except as noted. WTEC, copyright. All WTEC final reports are distributed on the Internet at http://www.wtec.org. Service (NTIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Some WTEC reports are distributed on paper by the National Technical Information nonexclusive and nontransferable license to exercise all exclusive rights provided by Inc., retains rights to distribute its reports electronically. The U.S. Government retains a in this material. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations to the World Technology Evaluation Center, Inc. The Government has certain rights views of the United States Goverment, the authors’ parent institutions, or WTEC, Inc.

4. WTEC Panel on Brain-Computer Interfaces Theodore W. Berger University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA John K. Chapin Greg A. Gerhardt University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA Dennis J. McFarland Wadsworth Center, Albany, NY, USA José C. Principe University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Walid V. Soussou Dawn M. Taylor Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA Patrick A. Tresco University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Acknowledgments panelists for their knowledge, enthusiasm, and dedication to this international bench- marking study of brain-computer interface R&D, and to all workshop presenters and site visit hosts for so generously sharing their time, expertise, and facilities with us. We also wish to thank Professor Jiping He of Arizona State University, who provided guidance and contacts regarding brain computer interface research labo- ratories in China, and Dr. Jason J. Burmeister of the University of Kentucky, who provided background material on sensor technologies for Chapter 2 of the report. For their sponsorship of this unique study, our sincere thanks go to the National Science Foundation, the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health, the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering of the National Institutes of Health, and the Margot Anderson Brain Restoration Foundation. Finally, our special thanks go to Dr. Semahat Demir for her vision and her unflagging support of the panel through all phases of this study. R. D. Shelton President, WTEC WTEC staff members wish to extend their gratitude and appreciation to all the v University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA

5. Abstract Brain-computer interface (BCI) research deals with establishing communication pathways between the brain and external devices. BCI systems can be broadly classified depending on the placement of the electrodes used to detect and measure neurons firing in the brain: in invasive systems, electrodes are inserted directly into the cortex; in noninvasive systems, they are placed on the scalp and use electro- encephalography or electrocorticography to detect neuron activity. This WTEC study was designed to gather information on worldwide status and trends in BCI research and to disseminate it to government decisionmakers and the research community. The study reviewed and assessed the state of the art in sensor techno- logy, the biotic–abiotic interface and biocompatibility, data analysis and modeling, hardware implementation, systems engineering, functional electrical stimulation, noninvasive communication systems, and cognitive and emotional neuroprostheses in academic research and industry. The WTEC panel identified several major trends in current and evolving BCI research in North America, Europe, and Asia. First, BCI research throughout the world is extensive, with the magnitude of that research clearly on the rise. Second, BCI research is rapidly approaching a level of first-generation medical practice; moreover, BCI research is expected to rapidly accelerate in nonmedical arenas of commerce as well, particularly in the gaming, automotive, and robotics industries. Third, the focus of BCI research throughout the world is decidedly uneven, with invasive BCIs almost exclusively centered in North America, noninvasive BCI systems evolving primarily from European and Asian efforts, and the integration of BCIs and robotics systems championed by Asian research programs. In terms of funding, BCI and brain-controlled robotics programs have been a hallmark of recent European research and technological development. The range and investment levels of multidisciplinary, multinational, multilaboratory programs in Europe appear to far exceed that of most university and government-funded BCI programs in the United States and Canada. Although several U.S. government programs are advancing neural prostheses and BCIs, private sources have yet to make a major impact on BCI research in North America generally. However, the U.S. Small Business Innovative Research grants (SBIRs) and Small Technology Transfer Research grants (STTRs) have been effective in promoting transition from basic research to precommercialized prototypes. In Asia, China is investing heavily in biological sciences and engineering in general, and the extent of invest- ment in BCI and BCI-related research has grown particularly rapidly; still, the panel observed little coordination between various programs. Japanese universities, research institutes, and laboratories also are increasing their investment in BCI research. Japan is especially vigorous in pursuing nonmedical applications and exploiting its expertise in BCI-controlled robotics. The WTEC panel concludes that there are abundant and fertile opportunities for worldwide collaborations in BCI research and allied fields. vii

6. viii WTEC Mission WTEC provides assessments of international research and development in selected technologies under awards from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and other agencies. Formerly part of Loyola College, WTEC is now a division of the World Technology Research Center, a sepa- rate nonprofit research institute. Michael Reischman, Deputy Assistant Director for Engineering, is NSF Program Director for WTEC. Sponsors interested in interna- tional technology assessments and related studies can provide support for the program through NSF or directly through separate grants or GSA task orders to WTEC. WTEC’s mission is to inform U.S. scientists, engineers, and policymakers of global trends in science and technology. WTEC assessments cover basic research, advanced development, and applications. Panels of typically six technical experts conduct WTEC assessments. Panelists are leading authorities in their field, techni- cally active, and knowledgeable about U.S. and foreign research programs. As part of the assessment process, panels visit and carry out extensive discussions with foreign scientists and engineers in their labs. The WTEC staff helps select topics, recruits expert panelists, arranges study visits to foreign laboratories, organizes workshop presentations, and finally, edits and publishes the final reports. WORLD TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION CENTER, INC. (WTEC) R. D. Shelton, President Michael DeHaemer, Executive Vice President Geoffrey M. Holdridge, Vice President for Government Services David Nelson, Vice President for Development Ben Benokraitis, Assistant Vice President Hassan Ali, Director of International Study Operations Grant Lewison (Evaluametrics, Ltd.), Advance Contractor, Europe Gerald Hane (Globalvation), Advance Contractor, Asia Maria L. DeCastro, Manuscript Development and Support Patricia M.H. Johnson, Director of Publications Halyna Paikoush, Event Planner and Office Manager Other WTEC Staff Members and Subcontractors Involved in this Study

7. Foreword We have come to know that our ability to survive and grow as a nation to a very large degree depends upon our scientific progress. Moreover, it is not enough simply to keep abreast of the rest of the world in scientific matters. We must maintain our leadership. 1 War II and in the midst of the Cold War. Indeed, the scientific and engineering leadership of the United States and its allies in the twentieth century played key roles in the successful outcomes of both World War II and the Cold War, sparing the world the twin horrors of fascism and totalitarian communism, and fueling the economic prosperity that followed. Today, as the United States and its allies once again find themselves at war, President Truman’s words ring as true as they did a half-century ago. The goal set out in the Truman Administration of maintaining leadership in science has remained the policy of the U.S. Government to this day: Dr. John Marburger, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President, made remarks to that effect during his confirmation hearings in October 2001.2 The United States needs metrics for measuring its success in meeting this goal of maintaining leadership in science and technology. That is one of the reasons that the National Science Foundation (NSF) and many other agencies of the U.S. Government have supported the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) and its predecessor programs for the past 20 years. While other programs have attem- pted to measure the international competitiveness of U.S. research by comparing funding amounts, publication statistics, or patent activity, WTEC has been the most significant public domain effort in the U.S. Government to use peer review to evaluate the status of U.S. efforts in comparison to those abroad. Since 1983, WTEC has conducted over 50 such assessments in a wide variety of fields from advanced computing, to nanoscience and technology, to biotechnology. The results have been extremely useful to NSF and other agencies in evaluating ongoing research programs and in setting objectives for the future. WTEC studies also have been important in establishing new lines of communication and identi- fying opportunities for cooperation between U.S. researchers and their colleagues abroad, thus helping to accelerate the progress of science and technology generally within the international community. WTEC is an excellent example of coopera- tion and coordination among the many agencies of the U.S. Government that are involved in funding research and development: almost every WTEC study has 1 Remarks by President Harry S. Truman on May 10, 1950, on the occasion of the signing of the law that founded the National Science Foundation. Public Papers of the Presidents 120: p. 338. 2 http://www.ostp.gov/html/01_1012.html. President Harry Truman spoke those words in 1950, in the aftermath of World ix

8. Forewordx been supported by a coalition of agencies with interests related to the particular subject at hand. As President Truman said over 50 years ago, our very survival depends upon continued leadership in science and technology. WTEC plays a key role in deter- mining whether the United States is meeting that challenge, and in promoting that leadership. Michael Reischman Deputy Assistant Director for Engineering National Science Foundation

13. xvi List of Figures 6.4. First FES system implanted to restore full arm and hand function in an 8.1. Raster plots and poststimulus time histogram of neuronal spike activity 8.2. Tuning curves of a neuron for preferred and nonpreferred rewards ……….. 111 8.3. Concept for a cortical prosthesis that utilizes a biomimetic model of hippocampal function and bypasses damaged regions of that structure from the hippocampus and strategy for replacing subfield CA3 of the 8.6. Data showing the amplitudes of population EPSPs (excitatory post- 8.7. A 16-input, 7-output neuron recording………………………………………………..117 8.9. Neurofeedback task screen display …………………………………………………….120 9.5. Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna spinoffs and startups. ………………………………138 individual with high tetraplegia…………………………………………………………… 91 in monkey parietal reach region during reaching and brain control trials ..110 7.1. Basic parts of a BCI communication system………………………………………….96 7.2. The hardware for a P300-based BCI home system ……………………………….100 7.3. Three views of BCI systems……………………………………………………………… 101 8.3. Seven emotions expressed by WE-4RII humanoid robot. …………………….. 113 to restore long-term memory formation. …………………………………………….. 114 synaptic potentials) recorded from the molecular layer of CA1 in 8.5. Left: illustration of the rat hippocampus and the orientation of slices prepared hippocampus with a VLSI-based model of CA3 nonlinear dynamics……..115 9.1. Locations of EURON members………………………………………………………….127 response to electrical stimulation of inputs to the dentate gyrus……………..116 8.8. Mean EEG traces of SCP during neurofeedback sessions ……………………..120 9.2. The NEUROBOTICS program. …………………………………………………………128 9.3. Components of the European research model………………………………………129 9.4. Cyberkinetics, a U.S. BCI company……………………………………………………134

15. xix Preface This benchmarking panel study on brain-computer interfaces had broad First, many thanks go to the panel chair, Ted Berger, and to all of the BCI panelists: John Chapin, Greg Gerhardt, Dennis McFarland, José Principe, Dawn Taylor, Patrick Tresco, and Walid Soussou (associate panelist). Next, our thanks go to the numerous eminent researchers from around the world whose input is a fundamental merit of this study. Gary Birch, John Donoghue, Daryl Kipke, Dan Moran, Richard A. Normann, David A. Putz, Andrew B. Schwartz, William Shain, and Krishna V. Shenoy presented at our North American BCI workshop on February 27, 2006. Twenty-seven leading institutions in Europe and Asia hosted panelists during site visits in May and October 2006. We are deeply grateful to all of those institutions and the many individuals who so generously shared their work and their insights with the panel. My personal thanks go to Mike Reischman, Lynn Preston, and Bruce Hamilton of NSF for supporting this idea and for co-funding this study with me from the beginning. I also thank the following government colleagues for co-sponsoring this study: Ephraim Glinert (NSF/CISE), Joseph Pancrazio (NIH/NINDS), Kenneth Curley (TATRC), and Grace Peng (NIH/NIBIB). Two non-governmental organi- zations contributed funds to the study; I appreciate the support of Jeffrey Sutton of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute and Herman Edel of the Margot Anderson Brain Restoration Foundation. In addition to the contributions of the above-mentioned colleagues, I would like to recognize the efforts of Mike Roco (NSF), Nancy Shinowara (NIH/NICHD), and Bob Jaeger (NIDRR, now with NSF) for their technical input to me, the WTEC team, and the panelists, and for attending the planning meetings and workshops. I acknowledge the WTEC team with special thanks to Mike DeHaemer (Executive Vice-President of WTEC), Hassan Ali (the manager for this study), and Duane Shelton (President of WTEC). Mike, Hassan, and Duane worked dilig- ently from the initiation of the study. Grant Lewison (Evaluametrics, Ltd.) arranged the site visits in Europe, and Gerald Hane (Globalvation) arranged the site visits in Asia. Roan Horning provided computing and website support. Ben Benokraitis coordinated and reviewed the substantive work on the report. Maria DeCastro and Pat Johnson contributed editing support. The study has been a great journey since my email to a few colleagues on November 10, 2004, in which I first proposed a study on Brain-Computer sponsorship from the U.S. Government agencies and private organizations listed in by thanking those who contributed so much to this final product. Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC). As the lead sponsoring program director for this study, I present this final report to the global brain-computer interface informative, productive journey for all involved in the study. I would like to start in the Acknowledgments page of the report; it was organized by the World community on behalf of all the study participants and sponsors. This has been an

16. xx Preface Interfaces, and my initial meeting with WTEC representatives on January 3, 2005. Milestones along the way included meetings with sponsors in March and April 2005; the sponsors and chair meeting on October 14, 2005; the kickoff meeting with the BCI panelists and sponsors on December 2, 2005; the North American workshop on February 27, 2006; site visits to Europe in May–June 2006; the workshop “Review of International Research on Brain-Computer Interfaces” on July 21, 2006; site visits to Asia in October 2006; and the BCI international bench- marking teleconference (Asia-Japan) on December 14, 2006. This report is the final result of the myriad efforts of the study team, and the vision realized of a benchmarking study on brain-computer interface R&D. BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE SCIENCE Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are defined as the science and technology of devices and systems responding to neural processes in the brain that generate motor movements and to cognitive processes (e.g., memory) that modify the motor move- ments. Advances in neuroscience, computational technology, component minia- turization, biocompatibility of materials, and sensor technology have led to a much improved feasibility of useful BCIs that engineers, neuroscientists, physical scientists, and behavioral and social scientists can develop as a large-scope team effort. The WTEC BCI international assessment panel defined BCI technologies as either “invasive” (multielectrode arrays of tens to hundreds of electrodes implanted into cortical tissue from which “movement intent” is decoded), or “noninvasive” (multielectrode arrays emplaced on the surface of the skull to record changes in EEG state) in their control of computer cursors or other systems. The study results presented at the workshops on February 27 and July 21, 2006, indicated that the majority of BCI science in North America involves invasive technologies, and the majority of BCI science in Europe involves noninvasive technologies and also the development of biologically inspired robots. The panel presented findings that European efforts are more often integrated within a larger research scope, and European BCI systems involve a wider range of EEG-based applications. Overall, the panelists felt that European and Asian BCI work is highly competitive with that of the United States and that many opportunities exist for collaboration. As indicated in this report, engineers around the world are working, in collabo- ration with neuroscientists, physical scientists, and social and behavioral scientists, to integrate and converge engineering tools and methods in the areas of sensors and signal processing, noninvasive and minimally invasive recording techniques from the brain and the peripheral nervous system, neural tissue engineering, neural imaging, nonlinear dynamics, chemical and biological transport, computational neuroscience and multiscale modeling, nano/micro technological neuroscience, control theory, systems integration, and robotics in order to permit control of

17. Preface xxi movement where normal neural pathways do not exist. Transformational solutions being pursued are leading to better understanding of the central and peripheral ner- vous systems and pushing forward the frontier of scientific discovery. The principal goal of BCI work is to enable people with neural pathways that have been damaged by amputation, trauma, or disease to better function and control their environment, through either reanimation of paralyzed limbs or control of robotic devices. BCI also extends to the fields of neurobiomimetics and complex hybrid neurobionic systems. BCI systems will have great societal impact, with growing interest on the part of industry to commercialize and market BCI systems for medical and nonmedical applications in the long term. The WTEC study iden- tifies the following opportunities for multidisciplinary BCI teams to find transfor- mational solutions: • Studying multiple levels and multiple scales of neural functions and neural code • Developing long-term biocompatibility between electronics and neural tissues • Establishing bidirectional communication between biomimetic devices and the nervous system • Developing hierarchically organized control systems for robotics and biomi- metics • Developing biologically inspired systems that will push the frontier for the deve- lopment of autonomous intelligent systems (“conscious” self-adaptive systems) • Engineering practical BCIs and even integrating BCIs with cyberinfrastructure. RELATED ACTIVITIES AT NSF In parallel to the WTEC BCI benchmarking study, NSF has sponsored several related neuroscience activities; some of the BCI panelists and I participated in those activities. The Steering Group workshop, “Brain Science as a Mutual Opportunity for the Physical Sciences, Mathematics, Computational Sciences and Engineering,” took place in Arlington, VA, on August 21–22, 2006. It identified as broad areas of opportunity (1) instrumentation and measurement; (2) data analysis, statistical modeling, and informatics; (3) conceptual and theoretical approaches; and (4) brain like devices and systems. These four opportunity areas align with the WTEC panel’s transformational solutions noted above. A second workshop, “Brain Science at the Interface of Biological, Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Computer Science and Engineering: Analysis of New Opportunities,” took place in Arlington, VA, March 5–6, 2007. The BCI-related opportunities and challenges that were identified at this workshop were: 1. Brain, mind, cognition, behavior, learning, development 2. Multiscale complexity; connectivity; nonlinear, nonstationary, stochastic control; stability; and adaptability (a) Neural coding and decoding (cognitive vs. neurophysiological)

18. xxii Preface 3. Bioinspired systems (a) Abstracting from neuroscience principles to develop bioinspired systems (b) Replicating neural computation (c) Next generation of computing systems 4. Sensors, smart sensing, and bidirectional communication. Research in neuroscience and cognition needs “bridging” of experimental and modeling work at the different scales of time (nanoseconds to years), of length (nanometers to meters), and of biology (atoms; molecules; molecular complexes; subcellular, cellular, multicellular elements; tissue, organs, organ systems, and orga- nisms, up to entire populations). The natural (biological) interfaces of nervous systems have to be studied with multiscale (multilevel) approaches by interdisciplinary teams of life scientists, physical scientists, social scientists, behavioral scientists, mathematicians, and engineers who must work within a broad research framework. Engineers bring to these multidisciplinary teams workable methods and tools for analysis, recording, modeling, and implementation of new BCI technologies. Bridging the sciences in the field of BCI from discovery to application or translation is a significant challenge. The Bioengineering Consortium (BECON, chaired by Dr. Michael Huerta, NIH/NIMH) formed a subcommittee called BECON Bridges on March 1, 2007, which Dr. Albert Lee (NIH/NIBIB) and I co- chaired. This subcommittee will determine the research areas in which the sciences needs to be bridged and what mechanisms can enable the bridging. BCI is one of those areas. On July 27, 2007, the NSF Engineering Directorate released two Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation 2008 topics (EFRI-2008), one of which is BCI-related: “Cognitive Optimization and Prediction: From Neural Systems to Neurotechnology (COPN).”1 The goal of COPN is to motivate engineers to reverse- engineer the prediction and optimization capabilities of the brain to facilitate usable design. While my NSF colleague Dr. Paul Werbos and I were developing COPN, the results of the WTEC BCI study were helpful. Section IV of National Science Foundation Investing in America’s Future, Strategic Plan FY 2006–20112 lists investment priorities for four strategic goals: Discovery, Learning, Research Infrastructure, and Stewardship. Under the Disco- very strategic goal there are five topics listed (page 6 of the Strategic Plan), four of which are areas where BCI R&D can contribute. 1 NSF. 2007. Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation, http://nsf.gov/publications/ pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf07579. 2 NSF. 2006. The FY 2006–2011 strategic plan is available online at http://www.nsf.gov/ pubs/2006/nsf0648/nsf0648.jsp.

19. Preface xxiii SIGNIFICANCE OF BCI R&D TO THE U.S. ECONOMY AND SOCIETY Based on the work of this panel and on the NSF discussions and activities noted above, it seems clear that BCI research and development activities can have an immediate and lasting impact on U.S. (and global) science and technology activities that far exceed their immediate, important, and exciting benefit to a relatively small number of citizens. The necessarily collaborative work towards BCI solutions depends on and at the same time advances work in many related high-tech fields. Thus, there is an inherently synergistic benefit to BCI work that operates on the cutting edge of many important fields of science and technology. At the same time, BCI work intersects with significant current trends in U.S. employment and in Federal support for science-based activities to enhance U.S. competitiveness relative to other nations. BCI-Related Job and Educational Opportunities According to the U.S. National Science Board,3 occupational projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) predict that the employment in science and engineering occupations will increase faster then the overall growth rate for all occupations. In addition, the BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2004–2005 edition, predicts that by 2012, top job growth will be in (1) healthcare and social assistance; and (2) biomedical, biotechnology, and bioengineering professions. Employment in biomedical engineering, biotechnology, and bioengineering is expected to increase by 21–35% by 2012. Thus, there are expected to be numerous promising career and job opportunities for biomedical engineers. Education indicators sustain this outlook. The IEEE Spectrum survey results of February 2007, “Your Best Bet for the Future,” identifies the top ten technology research and development fields that faculty would advise their students to pursue: the biomedical field is number one, and other fields in the top five, such as wireless/ mobile (number 2) and nanotechnology (number 5), are relevant to biomedical R&D as well. More specifically, based on the American Society for Engineering Education six-year trend analysis (1999–2005),4 BME, while still representing a small proportion of overall undergraduate and graduate degrees conferred, is one of the two fastest-growing disciplines at U.S. universities (the other is aerospace engineering). Of special note is the fact that BME is a field in which women 3 National Science Board. 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators—2004. NSB-04-1. Arlington, VA: NSF. 4 ASEE. 2007. 2006 profiles of engineering and engineering technology colleges. Washington, DC: ASEE. See also an online profiles sample at http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/ upload/2006ProfileEng.pdf.

20. xxiv Preface represent a higher proportion than other engineering fields of tenure/tenure-track teaching faculty and degree recipients. All these indicators are promising for the pipeline and the diversity of engineers that will enter BME careers in academia, industry, government, or independent consultancy. BCI and the Innovation and Competitiveness Debate On August 9, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the “America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science (COMPETES) Act.” America COMPETES authorizes research programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, with near-term doubling of funding. The bill also authorized $33.6 billion over fiscal years 2008 through 2010 for research and education programs across the Federal Government. The bill is intended to strengthen education and research in the United States related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Many provisions of the legislation were developed based on recommendations made in two reports on competitiveness: American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the World in Innovation5 and Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.6 Other recent reports, articles, and statements have addressed the U.S. innovation and competitiveness debate. The American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) recom- mends doubling funding over ten years on innovation-enabling research at three key Federal agencies (NSF, DOE, and NIST) that support high-leverage fields of The report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future makes recommendations for K-12 education, research, higher education, and economic policy. The Innovate America7 executive summary also makes recommendations under talent, investment, and infrastructure. BCI research is a strong contender as a field to promote U.S. technical leadership toward enhanced innovation and improved competitiveness, bringing attendant economic benefits. 5 Office of Science and Technology Policy Domestic Policy Council. 2006 (February). Available online at http://www.ostp.gov/html/ACIBooklet.pdf. 6 Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2007. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 7 Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2007. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. (2)researchanddevelopment(R&D)taxincentives,and(3)educationandworkforce. of physical science, basic science, and engineering. ACI has three broad parts: (1) research in physical sciences and engineering (including 12 specific goals),

21. Preface xxv CONCLUDING REMARKS The WTEC BCI study presents the current status and future trends of BCI research in North America, Europe, and Asia. It will assist NSF and other U.S. Government agencies to perform strategic planning for future STEM programs and to accelerate discoveries and the progress of science and engineering. These are exciting times for life scientists, physical scientists, and engineers to work together in inter- disciplinary, innovation-enabling research fields. BCI is one of those fields that will enrich the innovation and competitiveness debate globally. Semahat S. Demir, Ph.D. Program Director Biomedical Engineering Program National Science Foundation September 2007

22. Executive Summary Theodore W. Berger Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) research deals with establishing communication pathways between the brain and external devices. To provide program managers in U.S. research agencies as well as researchers in the field with a better under- standing of the status and trends in BCI research abroad, in December 2005 the WTEC International Assessment of Brain-Computer Interface R&D was organized. Sponsors included • National Science Foundation (NSF) • Telemedicine and Advanced Technologies Research Center (TATRC) of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) • National Space Biomedical Research Institute • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) of NIH • Margot Anderson Brain Restoration Foundation . The study was designed to gather information on the worldwide status and trends in BCI research and to disseminate it to government decisionmakers and the research community. The study reviewed and assessed the state of the art in sensor technology, the biotic–abiotic interface and biocompatibility, data analysis and modeling, hardware implementation, systems engineering, functional electrical stimu- lation (FES), noninvasive communication systems, and cognitive and emotional neuroprostheses in academic research and industry. To provide a basis for com- parison, the study began on February 27, 2006 with a workshop held at NSF entitled “Review of North American Research on Brain-Computer Interfaces.” After convening this baseline workshop, a WTEC panel of U.S. experts visited seventeen sites in Europe and ten facilities in China and Japan involved in BCI research. MAJOR TRENDS IN BCI RESEARCH The WTEC panel identified several major trends that both characterize the present, and can be projected into the future, of Brain-Computer Interface Research in North America, Europe, and Asia. First, BCI research throughout the world is extensive, with the magnitude of that research clearly on the rise. BCI research is an unmis- takable growth area—which because of the inherently interdisciplinary nature of BCIs, means growth in the interface between multiple key scientific areas, including xxvii

23. xxviii Executive Summary biomedical engineering, neuroscience, computer science, electrical and computer engineering, materials science and nanotechnology, and neurology and neuro- surgery. Thus, the panel sees future growth in BCIs as having a widespread influ- ence in shaping the landscape of scientific research in general and radically altering the boundaries of interdisciplinary research in particular. Second, BCI research is rapidly approaching a level of first-generation “medical practice”—clinical trials of invasive BCI technologies and significant home use of noninvasive, electroencephalography (EEG-based) BCIs. Because the threshold for substantial use of BCIs for medical applications is rapidly approaching, the panel predicts that BCIs soon will markedly influence the medical device industry. As a corollary, the panel sees that BCI research will rapidly accelerate in nonme- dical arenas of commerce as well, particularly in the gaming, automotive, and robotics industries. Thus, the industrial influence of BCIs is certain to increase in the near future. Third, the WTEC panel found that the focus of BCI research throughout the world was decidedly uneven, with invasive BCIs almost exclusively centered in North America, noninvasive BCI systems evolving primarily from European and Asian efforts, and the integration of BCIs and robotics systems championed by Asian research programs. Thus, the panel felt that there were abundant and fertile opportunities for worldwide collaborations that would allow the existing specia- lizations in different regions of the globe to interact in a synergistic and productive manner. In this summary, we elaborate on these and other conclusions from the WTEC panel’s study of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI) in North America, Europe, and Asia. MAGNITUDE OF BCI RESEARCH The magnitude of research and development of BCIs throughout the world will grow substantially, if not dramatically, in the next decades. There are multiple forces that are driving and will continue to drive this trend. One of the most fundamental forces accelerating BCI research is the continued advance in the science, enginee- ring, and technology required for the realistic achievement of BCIs. The growth in neuroscience continues to be explosive, with new frontiers being reached every year in understanding principles of the central nervous system (CNS) structure and function and—importantly for BCI design—systems-level organization of the nervous system. Rapid advances in biomedical engineering and computer science are producing the methodologies required for predictive models of neural function that can interact with the brain in real time. The continuing achievements in micro- electronics that allow ever-greater circuitry miniaturization together with increased speed and computational capacity are providing the next-generation hardware platforms for BCIs. This growing knowledge base and technological capability is

24. Executive Summary xxix creating the “bedrock” essential for developing BCI systems and powering ongoing advances in neural prostheses. The strong recent and current investment in BCI research throughout the world virtually guarantees a continued high growth rate. BCI and brain-controlled robotics programs have been one of the hallmarks of the European Union’s Sixth Framework Program (2002–2006) for Research and Technological Development. The large size and scope of these multidisciplinary, multinational, multilaboratory programs have been remarkable, with support levels far exceeding most BCI programs in the United States. Even if the scale of 7th Framework programs is reduced, the mom- entum of BCI research initiated by EU 6th Framework programs will not dampen for some time. Likewise, the panel was impressed by the formidable investment being made by China in biological sciences and engineering in general, and by the investment in BCI and BCI-related research in particular. Japanese universities and institutions also are unmistakably increasing their commitment to and invest- ment in BCI research. INVASIVE VERSUS NONINVASIVE BCI RESEARCH It became clear to the panel during its study that there is a marked contrast in the worldwide distribution of “invasive” and “noninvasive” BCI research. Invasive systems interact with the brain directly, i.e., with electrodes that penetrate the brain or lay on the surface of the brain, while noninvasive systems interact with the brain indirectly by transmissions through the skull, e.g., electroencephalography (EEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and magnetic sensor systems. The vast majority of invasive BCI research is currently being conducted in the United States. Virtually all BCI research in Europe is noninvasive, attribu- table in large part to constraints and intimidations imposed by animal rights organi- zations. BCI research in China appears to be almost exclusively noninvasive, though this reflects the relatively early stage of development of BCI research in that country. The massive modernization by China of its research programs in funda- mental neuroscience and BCIs hopefully is leading to the emergence of a first-rate invasive BCI program. The panel felt that there is a strong need to maintain a worldwide balance between invasive and noninvasive approaches to BCI research and technology if the field of neural prostheses is to remain vigorous and viable. The panel was particularly impressed by the commitment in Europe and Japan to devote the substantial resources needed to explore the possibility of fMRI and magnetoencephalography (MEG) sensor technologies as the basis of noninvasive BCIs, despite the high cost of such technologies and the uncertain time span or probability of miniaturization to the appropriate scale for routine patient use.

25. xxx Executive Summary NEED FOR MEDICAL BCI One of the other forces driving the current acceleration in BCI research is societal demand for solutions to the problem of repairing the nervous system. An unas- sailable reality is that when the brain and spinal cord become damaged or diseased, they do not repair themselves. With the increasing size of the world population and particularly its increasing age, the number of future patients with such diagno- ses as Parkinsonism and other tremor-related disorders and dementias including Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, accident-induced spinal cord injuries, and peri- pheral neuropathies resulting from diabetes is likely to be staggering. The panel found that BCI researchers uniformly considered future health-related needs for BCIs to be a strongly motivating factor, with that motivation particularly great in populous countries like China. In recognition of the current and future potential market for BCIs, the medical device industry has begun to accelerate development and market integration of BCI-related medical products. In the United States and Europe, evidence of medical industry collaborations with respect to BCI devices and systems is seen in an increa- sing number of startups and joint partnerships. As the bridge from research proto- type to medical device strengthens, solutions are emerging to the specialized design requirements imposed by the CNS: sensor designs, mathematical models and their hardware implementations, and brain interface materials are increasingly becoming “biomimetic” and “neuromorphic” in nature. In addition, there are also power requi- rements and biocompatibility issues that are unique to the CNS. SCOPE OF BCI RESEARCH: NONMEDICAL BCI The need for medical applications of BCI research, i.e., repair of the nervous system, will remain the core driving force for BCIs at least in the near future. The panel also found evidence, however, that BCI research will increasingly widen to include nonmedical applications. This transition is already in progress in many European and Japanese BCI laboratories. Fundamental principles of BCIs were seen to generalize readily to brain control of video gaming and virtual reality envi- ronments. Intriguing extensions of BCIs to automotive industry problems were found in the form of measuring driver cognitive load. Multiple research programs included a focus on BCI-related principles for robotics control and comprehensive programs for integrating BCIs into everyday life to link the human sensorium more completely and interactively into the environment.

26. Executive Summary xxxi TRANSLATION/COMMERCIALIZATION OF BCI The extent to which industry in Europe and Japan has embraced BCI-related research goals and the development of requisite technologies for BCIs is impressive. This high degree of industry commitment was perhaps most evidenced in Germany by institutional entities having the specific missions of actively promoting academic- industrial research interactions, garnering support for BCI research from industry sources, and transitioning the resulting BCI and BCI-related systems to industry for commercialization. Such entities house advanced technologies and equipment made available to startups with limited resources; research collaborations and partnerships could result in spinoffs that accelerate the entry of new BCIs and BCI technologies into the marketplace. The EU 6th Framework research programs strongly encourage and to some degree require industrial involvement. Corporations involved in commercialization of BCI systems and/or BCI-related products are essentially able to participate in EU-sponsored research (with some restrictions) as a “collaborator” along with any other university or institute unit and are eligible to receive funds to conduct their respective component of the overall research project. Equally impressive was the degree to which BCI-related research issues were integrated into the agendas of major Japanese research institutes and corporations and the extent of government support of those private, and sometimes profit-making, entities. In general, the panel saw creative and highly flexible academic-industry collaborations that promoted the transition from laboratory-based to commercialized BCIs. OPPORTUNITIES FOR WORLDWIDE COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH Because of the rich, interdisciplinary nature of BCI-related research, the panel was able to readily identify multiple opportunities for worldwide collaborations. Fore- most among these is a comprehensive effort to achieve a better understanding of the relation between noninvasive and invasive measures of cortical activity—EEG/ MEG, local field potentials, and (population) single-unit activity. This issue was identified at multiple sites visited by the panel as one that is both fundamental to neuroscience and useful in the further development of BCIs. This problem also is complementary to the relative strengths of BCI research on the three continents. Second, there is a plethora of new mathematical modeling and signal analysis methods being developed throughout the multiple countries involved in BCI rese- arch. Systematic evaluation of these methodologies and collaborative efforts to achieve synergy and avoid duplication would be beneficial to the forward move- ment of BCIs.

27. xxxii Executive Summary Third, there remain multiple electrode technologies used in North America, Europe, and Asia. Given the time required to develop and implement new electrode approaches and their associated electronics and signal processing protocols, disse- mination of technological innovation and collaboration with respect to needed next-generation methods, e.g., “dry” EEG electrodes, could accelerate BCI research and development progress. Needed collaborations with respect to BCI-related microelectronics also were acknowledged. Several multinational collaborations and technology-sharing efforts that can attest to the beneficial effects of collaboration on BCI research include • The joint DARPA Revolutionizing Prosthetics program (U.S.) and the robotics research program at the Polo Sant’Anna Valdera (Italy) • U.S.-European use of the Watson Center BCI2000 system • Multi Channel Systems and g.tec technologies. The technologies developed within these collaborative programs are now used throughout the world in BCI research. STUDY HIGHLIGHTS: BCI R&D IN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE Science of BCIs • The majority of BCI science in NA (North America) involves “invasive” tech- nologies, i.e., recordings from arrays of electrodes implanted into the brain. • The majority of BCI science in Europe involves “noninvasive” technologies, i.e., recordings from arrays of electrodes mounted onto the surface of the skull. • Other fundamental differences between U.S. and European BCI efforts: – European efforts are more often integrated within a larger research scope of developing “hybrid bionic systems.” – European BCI systems involve a wider range of EEG-based applications. – The panel saw many opportunities for synergy and collaboration with European BCI investigators. – Overall, the panel felt that, in terms of quality and sophistication, European BCI efforts are highly competitive with those of the United States. Interdisciplinary/Programmatic Structure for BCI Research • Programs are defined on a decade-long time scale. • High risk is “comfortably” inherent in programmatic definitions. • Fundamental science is considered an equal to practical outcomes.

28. Executive Summary xxxiii • In general, the panel found a strong European commitment to long-term, visio- nary, high-risk, interdisciplinary research, in other words, the foundation required for successful development of BCIs. • U.S. counterparts include DARPA initiatives, NSF ERC programs, and NINDS Neural Prosthetics. • The scale of multi-investigator projects possible under EU programs exceeds that found in the United States; multidisciplinary teams necessary for BCI res- earch are more readily created in the EU system. Funding for BCI Research • Consistent with the large, multidisciplinary BCI teams found in Europe, the scale of European BCI research funding is substantial. • Only NSF Engineering Research Centers (e.g., Biomimetic Microelectronic Systems Center at USC) and the largest DARPA programs (e.g., Revolutionizing Prosthetics) compete with EU programs. • In part, this reflects the consistent investment by European countries in funda- mental science and technology, in addition to investing in the engineering and applications aspects of BCI: – Tübingen, Germany: research-dedicated fMRI and MEG systems for non- invasive BCI – Freiburg, Germany: large-scale research program in nonlinear dynamics of brain function – Lausanne, Switzerland: world’s most advanced electrophysiological and modeling analysis of cortical circuitry. Translation/Commercialization of BCI Research • The European system has created specific mechanisms and institutions for cooperative activity between academia and industry; there is a high level of transitioning BCI research. • The European system is more effective than U.S. systems in integrating Indus- trial and academic efforts; there is substantial support from industry for BCI research. Extension of BCI Research to Patient Populations • There are several compelling examples of integrated research, development, and clinical applications in both Europe and the United States:

29. xxxiv Executive Summary – University of Aalborg, University of Tübingen, La Sapienza University – Wadsworth Center, Case Western Reserve University. • Collaborations between the United States and Europe on “best practices” in clinical applications of BCIs would be beneficial. Educational/Training Programs in BCI • Surprisingly little attention is paid to developing formal, BCI-specific training programs at the undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral levels. • The United States clearly has more comprehensive, well-developed educational/ training programs in BCI, with greater sensitivity to recruiting underrepresented minorities. • New programs for interdisciplinary training are under development in Europe at Aalborg University and Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna. STUDY HIGHLIGHTS: BCI R&D IN ASIA China Overall Scope and Magnitude of BCI Research in China • Although BCI research in China only started within the last ten years, it is already substantial in its scope and impressive in its accomplishments. • BCI algorithm development already leads the field. • Current BCI research is focused on low-cost, low-technology solutions—a reflection of socioeconomic demand, i.e., large population and relatively low economic status. • Extension to clinical settings and commercialization of BCIs are barely begun. • Future BCI research will incorporate “systems-level” solutions evolving from fundamental, invasive studies of brain function. Future Growth of BCI Research in China • Growth rate is now high and will remain high into the future. • BCI research will benefit from broad, large-scale investment in biological/ medical sciences, engineering/microelectronics, and mathematics/computer sciences. • Evidence exists for targeted, high-priority investment in BCI/biomedical engineering. • New facilities of world-class caliber for BCI/biomedical engineering:

30. Executive Summary xxxv – Tsinghua University: new biomedical engineering building/facilities – East China Normal University: new state-of-the-art multisite electrophysio- logical facilities; new genetic mouse-breeding facilities – Shanghai Jiao-Tong University: new campus; new multidisciplinary faci- lities for biomedical engineering, microelectronics, computing • Strong, high-level academic/government support exists. • Associations between different disciplines, critical for the development of BCIs, are already forming. • Strong commitments to education and large student/faculty population exist. • Invasive BCI programs are just now emerging, but commitment is clear and investment has begun. Relations with Industry/Commercialization • BCI research is in its beginning stages in China, but it is too early for signi- ficant industrial involvement or commercialization. • Nevertheless, there are multiple patents, and researchers are conscious of com- mercialization. • The primary funding source for BCI research in China is the government. • Funding entities include the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, “NNSF China” (National Natural Science Foundation of China), and the China High-Tech Research and Development Program. Training Programs and Educational Mechanisms • Little attention is now paid to developing BCI-specific training programs at any level: undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral. • Because of the early stage of development of BCI programs in China, efforts are focused on forming foundational departments and programs (e.g., biomedical engineering); as a consequence, traditional disciplines have precedence. Japan • BCI research in Japan should be evaluated within a context very different than that of China; critical factors for Japan are: Funding and Funding Mechanisms Overall Scope and Magnitude of BCI Research in Japan

31. xxxvi Executive Summary – World-leading robotics programs (output of motor BCI systems) – Integrated academic-industrial research agendas/partnerships. • Like China, Japan also is “discovering” BCI research (in terms of BCI-directed research currently representing a relatively small percentage of its total current research effort), but Japan appears to conduct BCI research in the following ways: – As an extension of the challenge of understanding the brain – As an extension of its now well-developed robotics programs (BCI-con- trolled robotics platforms). • BCI research in Japan is currently almost exclusively noninvasive, despite the many experimentally-based Japanese neuroscience programs. This results from the following: – A deliberate decision motivated by estimates of the ultimate user base (users other than those requiring nervous system repairs) – High-level technologies within Japanese research and industrial entities for noninvasive BCI research, e.g., combined fMRI, MEG, NIRS. • Japan has a “broader” perspective on BCIs than most other countries: – BCIs are not just for medical applications and nervous system repair – BCIs are integrated into everyday life of “normal” individuals (e.g., enhanc- ing desired movements, enhanced cognitive function) – Commercial issues with respect to both medical and nonmedical applica- tions of BCIs are already being considered – Ethical issues are already elevated to a significant level of importance Future Growth of BCI Research in Japan • Future growth will increase from the present at a relatively low rate. • Driving forces for future growth include – Commercial value of nonmedical applications – Increasing size of aging population: need for “assistive” BCI applications – Increased need for “smart” security/safety sensor-actuator systems Relations with Industry/Commercialization • BCI research already is becoming well integrated with large-scale industry: – Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) – Advanced Technology Research Institute (ATR). – Mature neuroscience and engineering research environments

32. Executive Summary xxxvii • Growth of industrial involvement should increase in future years. • There is the issue of need to balance supporting BCI growth within “agile,” small-sized companies against supporting BCI growth within the less dynamic, but better-funded large-sized companies. Funding and Funding Mechanisms • BCI research is primarily sponsored by the government. • Counter to recent trends in the United States, Japan continues to “bridge the gap” between academic and industrial research with funding from industry. Training Programs and Educational Mechanisms • Relatively little attention is paid to specialized training programs for BCIs. This probably reflects funding levels that are sufficiently broad-based that specialized training programs are unnecessary. CONCLUSIONS Magnitude of BCI Research • In general terms, the magnitude of BCI research throughout the world will grow substantially, if not dramatically, in future years. • There are multiple driving forces: – Continued advances in underlying science and technology – Increasing demand for solutions to repair the nervous system – Increase in the aging population world-wide; need for solutions to age- related, neurodegenerative disorders, and for “assistive” BCI technologies – Commercial demand for nonmedical BCIs. Scope of BCI Research • The need for nervous system repair will remain the core driving force for BCIs. • BCI research will increasingly widen to include nonmedical BCIs because of commercial demand, e.g., video games, automobile industry. • There is a long-standing need for “intelligent” robotics.

33. xxxviii Executive Summary Invasive Versus Noninvasive BCI Research • The majority of invasive BCI research is now being conducted in the United States; this is likely to remain the case for decades into the future. • European BCI research will be limited to the noninvasive domain for the foreseeable future as a result of the strong influence of animal rights advocates. • China’s BCI research programs will increasingly become more balanced in terms of invasive and noninvasive technologies as China’s BCI programs grow: – Noninvasive BCIs will be in high demand because of the large population and limited healthcare funding. – Invasive BCIs will become increasingly attractive because of strong growth in fundamental neuroscience/engineering and the lack of animal rights movements. • Japan’s research programs will continue to focus on brain-robotics BCIs and how to utilize high-tech, noninvasive methodologies as the basis for BCIs. Opportunities for Worldwide Collaborative Research • The relationship between EEG/MEG, local field potentials, and (population) single-unit activity measures of cortical activity remains an issue that is both fundamental to neuroscience and useful in the context of developing BCIs. Cooperation in this research area could stimulate and maintain U.S.-European- Asian collaborations. • There remain multiple electrode technologies throughout the world for recording and stimulating neural tissue. – Systematic evaluation of these technologies, with respect to defined needs/ conditions, would be extremely helpful – Development of new technologies is essential (e.g., “dry” EEG electrodes, • The issue of biocompatibility between micromachined devices and brain tissue, particularly within the context of recording-stimulation functionality maintained for implant periods greater than one year, remains a high priority. • There is a need to identify spatiotemporal patterns of population, ensemble unit firing. – Multiple theoretical/modeling approaches have been proposed and utilized as part of BCI projects throughout the world – Systematic evaluation of these methods—and development of new approaches—is sorely needed small-feature-size micro/nanoscale electrodes)

36. 2 1. Introduction (NIH), the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, and the Margot Anderson Brain Restoration Foundation sponsored the WTEC International Assessment of Brain-Computer Interfaces. The study was designed to gather information on the worldwide status and trends in BCI research and to disseminate it to government decision makers and the research community. The study participants reviewed and assessed the state of the art in sensor technology, interface and compatibility, data analysis and modeling, hardware implementation, systems engineering, and func- tional electrical stimulation (FES) in academic research and industry. Questions of interest to the sponsoring agencies to be addressed by the study included the following: • What is the state of science worldwide, including investigators and funding profiles? • What are the gaps, holes, and needs? What are the “grand challenges,” and are they being addressed? • What kinds of clinical studies have been initiated? As BCI research continues to accelerate into the foreseeable future, this study will help researchers to collaborate and exchange scientific data more effectively and to direct more focused research into research areas that offer promising results. METHODOLOGY Once the agency sponsors established the scope of the assessment, WTEC recruited a panel of U.S. experts chaired by Theodore W. Berger, Professor of Bio- medical Engineering and Neurosciences, David Packard Professor of Engineering, and Director of the Center for Neural Engineering at the University of Southern California (see Table 1.1). The assessment was initiated by a kickoff meeting on December 12, 2005 at the NSF headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. Participants discussed the scope of the project and the need for a North American baseline workshop, candidate sites in Europe and Asia for panel visits, the overall project schedule, and assignments for the final report. Table 1.1 Panel Members # Panelist Affiliation 1 Theodore W. Berger (Panel Chair) University of Southern California 2 John K. Chapin SUNY Downstate Medical Center 3 Greg A. Gerhardt University of Kentucky 4 Dennis J. McFarland Wadsworth Center 5 José C. Principe University of Florida 6 Dawn M. Taylor Case Western Reserve University 7 Patrick A. Tresco University of Utah

37. Theodore W. Berger 3 The panelists, sponsors, and WTEC convened a North American Baseline Work- shop on February 27, 2006, at NSF to report on noninvasive and minimally invasive BCI using EEG and ECoG; sensors, signal processing, and biocompatibility in invasive BCI; systems integration and modeling; and translation and comer- cialization issues. Table 1.2 lists the speakers and the titles of their presentations. The international assessment phase of the WTEC study commenced in late May 2006 with two weeks of visits to the 17 European sites shown in Table 1.3. That trip concluded with an outstanding meeting in Frankfurt, Germany, on June 3, 2006, in which the panelists reviewed and compared their site visits in Europe. A second round of site visits to ten facilities in China and Japan took place during the last week of October 2006, as shown in Table 1.4. During its visit to China, the Table 1.2 Speakers and Presentations at the North American Baseline Workshop Name Affiliation Presentation Title Theodore Berger University of Southern California WTEC International Assessment of Brain- Computer Interface Research Gary Birch Neil Squire Foundation Asynchronous BCI and Brain Interface Research Dan Moran Washington University Electrocorticographic (ECoG) Control of Brain-Computer Interfaces Dennis McFarland Wadsworth Center Commentary: Summary of EEG/ECoG Daryl Kipke University of Michigan Implantable Microscale Neural Interface Devices for BCI Systems Richard Normann University of Utah Applications of Penetrating Microelectrodes in Nervous System Disorders William Shain Wadsworth Center Understanding Biological Responses to Inserted Neural Prosthetic Devices: Building a Foundation to Promote Improved Tissue Integration and Device Performance Patrick Tresco University of Utah Greg Gerhardt University of Kentucky Commentary Krishna Shenoy Stanford University Decoding Movement Plans for Use in Neural Prosthetic Devices Andy Schwartz University of Pittsburgh Useful Signals from Motor Cortex Dawn Taylor Case Western Reserve University José Principe University of Florida Commentary John Donoghue Brown University Neuromotor Prosthesis/Direct Brain Interfaces David Putz Ad-Tech Medical Instrument Corporation The Path from Research & Development to FDA Approval to Commercialization John Chapin SUNY Downstate Medical Center Greg Gerhardt University of Kentucky Commentary Commentary Commentary Commentary

39. Theodore W. Berger 5 systems; research and experimentation protocols; experimentation aimed at improv- ing signal and pattern recognition; and hardware and software development. The panelists noted that the degree of collaboration between the biological and enginee- ring sciences varied widely among the institutes visited. Following the conclusion of the European round of site visits but prior to the visits to China and Japan, the panel reconvened for a final workshop at NSF on July 21, 2006, to present its findings and conclusions. Presentations focused on the fol- lowing topics: • Sensor technologies • Biotic–abiotic interfaces • Modeling, architectures, and signal processing • Robotics and prosthetics • FES and rehabilitation applications • Communication devices • Cognitive and emotional prostheses • Organizational and translational issues. OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT In Chapters 2 and 3, Drs. Gerhardt and Tresco review some of the major technical issues involved in recording electrophysiological activity from multi-site arrays. These involve micro-electrode materials and manufacturing procedures (Chapter 2), used in BCI research to date, with future issues and directions for future research indicated as well (Drs. Principe and McFarland). In Chapter 5, John Chapin reviews how various BCI systems promise to help people overcome paralysis caused by damage to the brain, spinal cord, spinal nerves, or muscles. Although cell biology research may ultimately yield definitive cures for paralysis, at least into the near future the restoration of motor function will likely depend on continued progress in electronic and computer technologies. In Chapter 6 Dawn Taylor summarizes recent progress in FES for a variety of lifesaving and motor-control applications. She reminds us that BCI-derived options must be considered within the broader context of techniques and technologies that are (or will soon be) available to users. In Chapter 7, Dennis McFarland discusses how recent advances in EEG-based BCI communications systems promise mobility and control to people who have experienced loss of voluntary and/or involuntary muscle control. The twin chal- lenges of limited bandwidth and system complexity must be overcome if today’s proof-of-principle systems are to become tomorrow’s successful applications. In Chapter 8, Walid Soussou and Theodore Berger present developments in cog- nitive and emotional prostheses to address cognitive impairments such as memory and biocompatibility and integration of the electrodes with brain tissue (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 reviews signal processing and modeling methodology commonly

40. 6 1. Introduction Additional information, documentation, and photographs for all phases of the WTEC International Assessment of Brain-Computer Interfaces are available on the WTEC website at http://www.wtec.org/bci/. In particular, a list of foreign and domestic BCI-related research programs, professional organizations, and conferences is provided at http://www.wtec.org/bci/BCI_Research_Programs.htm. Appendix A contains biographies of the delegation members, and Appendixes B and C include detailed reports for each of the sites visited during the international assessment; a glossary is provided in Appendix D. loss, mood or personality alterations, behavioral changes, and emotional dysfunction. Finally, in Chapter 9, Theodore Berger reviews issues of funding for research organizations, translation-commercialization, and education-training.

42. 8 2. Sensor Technology clinical forum for development of long-lasting brain electrode technologies and a test bed for development of brain-compatible BCI devices (see Chapter 3). Electrodes are enabling technologies to allow information from the brain to be encoded by computer algorithms to provide input and control of BCI devices. Without these devices we cannot transfer information from the brain that can be used to control BCI instrumentation. As such, it is too often assumed that the technologies surrounding sensors for BCI are fully worked out and that there is little room for improvement. In reality, there is a tremendous potential for growth of these devices and need for new types of both invasive and noninvasive electrode technologies to further pursue BCI applications. The major challenges are discussed at the end of this chapter. The purpose of the present chapter is to review the current sensor technologies used for invasive and noninvasive BCI approaches throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. We have visited and/or interacted with key laboratories with expertise in these areas. Although not completely comprehensive, this chapter gives an overview of the major sensor technologies that are being developed for potential BCI applications. We are pleased to acknowledge the extensive assistance of Jason J. Burmeister, our colleague at the University of Kentucky, for helping us prepare this chapter. BCI SENSOR WORLD OVERVIEW Most BCI science in North America involves “invasive” sensor technologies, i.e., multielectrode recordings from arrays of microelectrodes implanted directly into the brain. This is the greatest area of growth in sensor technology. Most BCI science in Europe involves “noninvasive” sensor technologies, i.e., using multielectrode recordings from arrays of EEG electrodes mounted onto the surface of the skull. This sensor technology has experienced a very limited growth and requires substantial improvement. Certain BCI sites in Europe are capable of providing sensor technologies that could aid in the advancement of “invasive” sensor technologies; however, this is not their current plan. Even with respect to noninvasive technologies, many European sites collaborate with, or utilize paradigms that were developed in the United States, such as at the Wadsworth Center in Albany NY. In Asia, there is a clear emphasis on less expensive EEG BCI approaches. Reasons include the large population in China and the need for low-cost, noni- nvasive BCI technology for improved public healthcare there. Japan is also focused on noninvasive EEG-based BCI technologies. There is rapid economic growth and science spending in China and Japan that will propel all BCI technology development forward. In addition, there are clear indications that facilities are available and there is interest in invasive BCI technology in China. Overall, the panel believes Asia has the manufacturing facilities and infrastructure to drive

43. Greg A. Gerhardt and Patrick A. Tresco 9 development of new invasive BCI technology development that could rival or exceed U.S. efforts in five to ten years. MAJOR TYPES OF SENSORS FOR BCI TECHNOLOGY History of Direct Implantable Electrodes The history of implanting electrode arrays in the CNS (see Chapter 3 for historical references and additional papers) dates back to the early work of Hess in the 1930s with initial implants in felines. This set the stage for investigators in the 1950s, such as Heath and Olds (Heath et al., 1953; Olds et al., 1971; Baumeister, 2006), to use implantable electrodes primarily for electrical stimulation of the brain, but also for recording. In the late 1950s, Fischer and colleagues were the first to use a variety of different metal-type electrodes and single-wire electrodes and also started to investigate any pathology resulting from the effects of wire electrodes (see Chapter 3). However, the more modern adaptation of implantable electrodes occurred in the 1970s. Selman and Bach in the early 1970s started using coated microwires for electrophysiological recordings, and in the early 1980s Chapin and Woodward (1986) reported the development of 50 μm tungsten microwire arrays for multiple single-unit recordings. Basically, this type of technology is used today by many laboratories for the more routine multiple single-unit recordings and many applications of BCI in animals. However, some of the problems of multiwire arrays relate to precise control of the electrode recording sites and issues surround- ing the viability of individual wires. Between 1970 and 1975, Wise and Angell (Wise et al., 1970; Wise and Angell, 1975) introduced the concept of using integrated chip (IC) technology to develop microelectrodes. Over the next years, numerous papers were published, and in the 1980s the seminal work of BeMent and coworkers (BeMent et al., 1986; Drake et al., 1988) was the first development of a multisite microelectrode arrays from sili- con. A few years later, in the early 1990s, the first silicon-based monolithic multi- shank electrode array was developed, which is now used by numerous laboratories and is even used for human BCI applications by Donoghue and coworkers (Hochberg et al., 2006). In general, microelectrodes can provide a means to electrically stimulate and record both electrophysiological activity and chemical activity of neurons in the brain and spinal cord (Hochberg et al., 2006; Burmeister and Gerhardt, 2006). There have been many reports too numerous to cite for this chapter of the design and use of microelectrodes for electrophysiological recordings (Anderson et al., 1989; Burmeister and Gerhardt, 2006; Cheung, 2007). In addition, in part we have discussed some of this technology in a recent chapter (Burmeister and Gerhardt, 2006).

This is Willard Max Imamoto. I am informing all of you that I don’t have time to waste on these victims & that only has a very small International data base with members whom they say can prove their identity and health status evidence. . That are basing evidence either as an illegal implant which can’t happen it’s impossible, because they would have to have Imaging tests to prove an implant exists such as MRI, fMRI SPECT or PET Scans in which nobody has proved yet but still claims this delusional evidence, and if it were an implant what could it be? The only known implants are GPS chips you know for Dogs or Cats when they get lost.

Perhaps the Delusional evidence from those possessing these brain implants can have one remove from their Delusional Brains & have it analyzed or shall I say psycho-analyzed or to those who made you believe you have a brain implant.

Project Mkultra was a CIA project long ago dealing with LSD & yes mind control which wasn’t successful at all because all the non-informed guinea pigs was flipping out & the CIA had NO CONTROL on those who was severely hallucinating tripping & flipping out & one even dove out of a window and died & that is how Project Mkultra was discovered, because the CIA had no Mind Control with these individuals on potent LSD better known as window pane (pain).

As far as burns, wounds yes only because of the instruments that I have mentioned & was also used back in the 1980 with the E.P.R.I. reports (electric power research institute) which was Acoustics, Electromagnetics, Elastic Wave Scattering, Microwaves, Cyclotron Resonance, & a Computer & Programing which controlled the out-going non ionized radiation all on a Multi-Layered Structuring that can definitely cause burns & wounds & leaving very dark in color scars.

It looks like the PEOPLE CALLING THEMSELVES TI victims Electronic Harassment Mkultra Mind Control Cyber Bullying in the European Sector’s database has a very disappointing 20 people from Hungary, Czech, France, Sweden, Latvia & India.

That’s why I am exposing Buffers such as these because of the OBVIOUS LACK OF THESE VICTIMS WITH SO MANY DIFFERENT LABELS & Sidetracking & Deceiving people with very Delusional Conspiracy Theories, BELOW IS A GREAT EXAMPLE of who I Blew away.

Hey Everybody! Dr. Robert Duncan is a co-conspirator in Intentional fraud of covering up Human Right Genocide violations & the fact that our Health system is the #1 cause of death without I going into Iatrogenesis (pharmaceuticals) which I also can & will.

Re: Dr. Robert Duncan A.B., S.M., M.B.A., Ph.D.: Government warfare and surveillance system architect, author of Project: Soul Catcher: Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed, The Matrix Deciphered, and How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control

First of all When Dr. Duncan states that he designed these instruments for the Governments warfare & surveillance system(s) these exact instruments has been around since the early 1950’s when Germany used them for spying because it could penetrate concrete walls.

As far as his personal knowledge in misinforming these TI victims, Electronic Harassment, Mkultra, Cybernetics, Cyber bullying, organized intimidation stalking & mind control is concerned Dr. Duncan is using this heinous tactics because of his knowledge of what I can expose & in OBTAING THE REAL EVIDENCE.

What I can expose is called P.N.I. (psycho-neuro-immunology) which started back in the mid 1970’s.

This is the time when crack cocaine & people seeing bugs crawling all over there body through a so called drug psychosis when a stimulant psychosis wasn’t possible because it wasn’t through Chronic usage (as all abstracts from scientific publications purports & supply couldn’t meet the demand for Chronic usage & crystal meth came on the market in the early 1980’s in which supply could not meet the Demand & speculation or was obviously there because people started getting chronic in the 1990’s

The study is now called P.E.N.I. (psycho-endo-neuro-immunology the study of emotions & in creating psycho-social stressors) also look at the list of psycho-social stressors that’s directly linked with this Derelict Science.

Table of stressors: #HEALTH, an injury or illness, being in the hospital, major dental work, change in eating habits change in sleeping habits, change in recreational habits, #WORK: hours and conditions, troubles at work with your boss, coworkers, persons under your supervision, loss of job, fired from work. #HOME AND FAMILY: Changes in living conditions, change of residence, change in family get-togethers, major change in health or behavior of family members, pregnancy, miscarriage or abortion, changes in arguments with spouse, in law problems, divorce, remarriage, death of spouse or other family members, #PERSONAL AND SOCIAL: Created Drug Usage & Crimes, & Jail Time BECAUSE NOW YOUR CAUGHT IN THE SYSTEM HAVING A HISTORY OF DRUG USAGE & VIOLENCE NOW YOU’VE JUST BECOME A LEGITIMATE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY FOR THESE PSYCHO-SOCIAL STRESSORS & CHRONIC EMF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS FOR ALL CANCERS, TUMORS, TUMOR GROWTH, HEART DISEASES, AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, & TERRATOLOGY WITH BIRTH DEFECTS & MISCARRIAGES THAT WHAT YOUR GUINEA PIGS FOR, change in personal habits, change in political beliefs, change in religious beliefs, change in social activity, new friends, girlfriend or boyfriend problems, sexual difficulties, death of a close friend suicidal thoughts: #FINANCIAL major changes in finances, loss or damage of personal property, major purchase, foreclosure on mortgage, loan. Religious beliefs, Religious Concerns, Religious Transitions

Also Dr. Duncan did not explain how these instruments can be targeted at these various victims in order to do torture or mind control & why these NOBODYS.

Dr. Duncan has now implicating the USA government in that there is NO National Security threats because to many countries knows about these instruments & like instruments for communications.

Here’s why & where Dr. Duncan Intentionally deceived these victims, because It is impossible without tapping memory or thought & if you go to my blogs it will fully explain this TWO PART RESEARCH (go to parts my updated blogs Parts 2, 4, & 5) Part 2 Project P.E.N.I. Children with ADHD Autism &“Big Pharma’s New Market(s)” a 700 % increase in over-misdiagnosis http://redwhiteandbluesthebravesheep.com/?p=54

It will show you the diagrams of where these instruments can tap memory & in utilizing your basic sensors go to my website has the Images http://www.allbrainsandballsofsteel.com & scroll down & view the Timpanic Membrane & the Broca’s Area these 2 area’s only & hell with the Wernicke’s area that associated with Visual & Optic sensories, because CLOSE YOUR EYE NOW THIS AREA IS USELESS IN WHAT I AM PROVING & WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. & these Facts are already proven scientifically.

The Matrix deciphered is a bunch of crock shit.

I can gather both physical Evidence proving its P.E.N.I. from my present Prima Facie Evdidence to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt & my Prototype will be able to do the mind control aspects & all the Created Psycho-Social Stressors & in duplicating Schizophrenia, Bipolar, & Dual Diagnosis Symptom logy’s such as Audio & Visual Hallucinations & Smells.& well as other Mental Health illnesses.

Also tell Dr. Robert Duncan I can design the same instruments & mass produce it for $50.00 excluding the Textile Hallucinations which really is torture because it can produce pains heat, etc.

Dr. Robert Duncan is just like this… Who the F-wants to be a rocket scientist-GOING ANY WHERE?

What he is doing by making you believe this crap is Diverting the General Public when everyone should be gathering the simple crucial evidence explained in my Blog(s) under the REAL NAME OF THIS RESEARCH P.E.N.I. Psycho-Endo-Neuro-Immunology & check this OUT I CAN GATHER EVIDENCE FROM 75 MILLION PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ALL THE MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMERS that’s why these Buffers Were Conjured Up.

*czelenk@gmail.hu *

Sep 9 (13 days ago)

to me

Dear Mr. Willard Max lmamoto,

Thank you for your efforts you put into revealing those covert crimes against humanity. The database is small as only the registered members gave their details, names and personal data requested. We didn’t force anyone to enter details if they are not willing or not capable of for a European organisation.

These members are obviously real victims and targets, in facebook communities there are many fake Tis and covert agents sadly, that is we wanted a database only with members who can prove their identity and health status evidence.

l used to work as a medical doctor in the speciality field of radiology and medical imaging.